Harassment at Work in California

HOME › CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAW › HARASSMENT AT WORK

Last updated: March 2026 — Reflects all FEHA regulations and case law in effect as of January 1, 2026, including Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office (2024)

Workplace harassment is not just a human resources problem. In California, it is a civil rights violation with significant legal consequences for employers.

When a supervisor conditions a promotion on sexual compliance, when a coworker subjects a colleague to a sustained campaign of racial insults, or when management creates an environment so hostile that a reasonable person cannot effectively do their job, California law provides a direct path to accountability — and to meaningful compensation.

The state’s protections under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) are among the most expansive in the country, covering more workers, more types of conduct, and more categories of identity than any federal statute.

Harassment claims under California law are distinct from discrimination claims, though the two often arise together. Discrimination involves adverse employment decisions — hiring, firing, promotion — made because of a protected characteristic.

Harassment involves unwelcome conduct that creates a hostile or abusive work environment because of that characteristic. The distinction matters legally, but both fall within the scope of California employment law and are enforced by the California Civil Rights Department (CRD). What unites them is FEHA’s core mandate: that no employee in California should endure mistreatment at work because of who they are.

This guide explains what California law treats as workplace harassment, the different forms it takes, who can be held liable, how to prove a claim, how to file with the CRD, what damages are available, and when to seek legal counsel.

It incorporates the most current statutory framework and the landmark Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, 16 Cal.5th 611 (2024), decision — the California Supreme Court’s most significant harassment ruling in years. If you believe you are being harassed at work, understanding the framework established under California employment law is your first step toward protecting yourself.

What Qualifies as Workplace Harassment in California?

FEHA Government Code § 12940(j) prohibits harassment of an employee, applicant, unpaid intern, volunteer, or contractor because of any protected characteristic. Unlike FEHA’s anti-discrimination provisions, the harassment prohibition applies to all employers, regardless of size.

A business with a single employee is subject to the harassment prohibition. That breadth is intentional: California’s legislature has consistently treated the right to a workplace free from targeted mistreatment as a universal civil right, not a privilege that depends on the size of one’s employer.

To be actionable under FEHA, harassment must: (1) be based on a protected characteristic; (2) be unwelcome; and (3) be severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment. These three requirements each have meaning, and each can be the subject of litigation.

Two Forms of Actionable Harassment

California law recognizes two legally distinct forms of workplace harassment, each with a different structure and different standards for employer liability:

The Severe or Pervasive Standard — and the Bailey Revolution

The threshold question in any hostile work environment case is whether the conduct was severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive environment.

These are alternative standards, not cumulative ones — conduct that is sufficiently severe qualifies even if it was not repeated, and conduct that is pervasive qualifies even if each individual act was relatively minor.

California courts evaluate severity and pervasiveness from the perspective of a reasonable person in the victim’s position, with sensitivity to the social context that shapes how particular conduct is experienced by members of the targeted group.

Until 2024, California courts generally required plaintiffs claiming harassment by a coworker — as distinct from a supervisor — to demonstrate a pattern or series of harassing acts.

A single incident by a non-supervisory coworker, however offensive, was typically insufficient as a matter of law. The California Supreme Court fundamentally changed that rule in Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, 16 Cal.5th 611 (2024).

Landmark Case: Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office (2024)

Facts: Twanda Bailey, an African American investigative assistant at the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, was called the N-word by a coworker with whom she shared an office and daily job duties. She reported the incident, but the employer’s HR manager obstructed the filing of a formal complaint, failed to take corrective action, and subsequently subjected Bailey to a campaign of ostracism and intimidation. Two lower courts dismissed her case, holding that a single slur by a coworker could not constitute actionable harassment as a matter of law.

Holding: Bailey, 16 Cal.5th at 623: “An isolated act of harassment is actionable if it is sufficiently severe in light of the totality of the circumstances, and a coworker’s use of an unambiguous racial epithet, such as the N-word, may be found to suffice.” The California Supreme Court unanimously reversed. The speaker’s status as a coworker rather than a supervisor was not dispositive — it was simply one factor in the totality-of-circumstances analysis.

Significance: (1) A single act of harassment by a coworker can now support a viable FEHA claim if sufficiently egregious. (2) An employer that fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action following a harassment complaint may itself be found negligent, even when the harassment arose from a single incident. (3) The Court held that the employer’s HR manager’s retaliatory conduct — obstructing the complaint and ostracizing Bailey — could itself constitute an adverse employment action supporting a retaliation claim.

What Conduct Does Not Qualify

Not every uncomfortable, unfair, or offensive workplace experience constitutes actionable harassment under FEHA. California courts have consistently held that the following do not rise to the legal threshold, standing alone:

Petty slights and isolated offhand comments that are not tied to a protected characteristic.

General rudeness, poor management, or personality conflicts without any connection to protected identity.

Performance management, criticism, and workplace discipline conducted through normal supervisory channels, even when the employee disagrees with the assessment.

Social favoritism that is not based on a protected characteristic (though widespread sexual favoritism by a supervisor can create a hostile environment per Miller v. Department of Corrections, 36 Cal.4th 446 (2005)).

Isolated mildly offensive remarks that a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate in a workplace setting.

The distinction between harassment that California law addresses and ordinary workplace friction that it does not is drawn at the point where the conduct materially alters the terms and conditions of employment.

Once that threshold is crossed — whether through a single severe act or a sustained pattern of mistreatment — the law provides a remedy.

Common Examples of Workplace Harassment in California

The following scenarios illustrate how workplace harassment arises in practice across different protected categories and workplace structures.

Each reflects fact patterns that California employment courts regularly encounter.

Example 1: Sexual Harassment — Quid Pro Quo

A restaurant manager tells a female server that she will be given the high-traffic Saturday shifts — the most lucrative of the week — only if she agrees to go on a date with him.

When she declines, she is consistently scheduled for slow weekday morning shifts and eventually passed over for a promotion she had been formally promised.

The manager’s conditioning of employment benefits on her response to sexual advances is quid pro quo harassment under FEHA § 12940(j). Because the harasser is a supervisor, the employer is strictly liable — no showing of the employer’s knowledge is required.

Example 2: Racial Harassment — Hostile Work Environment by a Coworker

A Black technician at a manufacturing facility in the Inland Empire is subjected to repeated racial slurs and graffiti from coworkers on the floor over a period of four months. He reports the conduct to his shift supervisor twice, in writing.

The supervisor acknowledges the reports but takes no corrective action. The employer’s failure to act after receiving actual notice creates liability under the negligence standard applicable to coworker harassment.

Each incident is documented; the pattern is unambiguous. Following Bailey, even if the conduct had occurred on a single occasion, the severity of a racial slur directed at a targeted employee in a close working environment could itself support a claim.

Example 3: Sexual Harassment — Hostile Work Environment by a Supervisor

A female paralegal at a law firm is regularly subjected to sexual comments from the supervising attorney about her appearance, repeated unwanted physical contact when reviewing documents at her desk, and the display of sexually suggestive imagery at team meetings.

She has not formally complained because she fears being passed over for the associate attorney position she is working toward. The conduct meets the severe-or-pervasive standard: it is both pervasive (repeated over months) and, as to the physical contact, arguably severe enough on its own. Because the harasser is a supervisor, the employer faces strict liability.

Example 4: Religious Harassment

A Muslim employee in an open-plan tech office is subjected to sustained mockery of her faith by coworkers: jokes about her prayer schedule, comments about her hijab, and exclusion from team social events that are framed in ways that make her feel her religious practice is a subject of ridicule.

She has mentioned to her manager that the comments make her uncomfortable; nothing has changed. The conduct — targeted, repeated, tied to a protected characteristic, and ongoing after notice — satisfies the pervasive-harassment standard under FEHA. The employer’s failure to act after receiving notice triggers its liability.

Example 5: Disability-Based Harassment

An employee with a visible physical disability working in a warehouse is routinely singled out by a floor supervisor for degrading comments about his limitations, assigned publicly humiliating tasks designed to highlight what he cannot do, and excluded from team meetings by being told he is “too slow.”

Because the harasser is a supervisor, no knowledge on the employer’s part is required for liability. The conduct is pervasive and tied directly to a FEHA-protected disability. A hostile work environment claim under FEHA § 12940(j) is well-supported.

Example 6: Third-Party Harassment

A female hotel concierge is regularly subjected to sexually explicit comments and unwanted touching by a specific repeat guest. She has reported the conduct to her manager in writing. The manager takes no action, telling her that the guest is a high-value client.

FEHA § 12940(j)(1) extends the employer’s duty to prevent harassment to conduct by third parties — including clients, customers, and vendors — when the employer knows or should know of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. The employer’s failure to act after notice creates liability.

The Legal Framework: FEHA, Case Law, and 2026 Developments

FEHA — Government Code § 12940(j)

FEHA’s harassment provision, Government Code § 12940(j), prohibits harassment of any employee, applicant, unpaid intern, volunteer, or independent contractor because of any of the characteristics protected under Government Code § 12926.

Critically, harassment is prohibited in all workplaces, even those with a single employee or independent contractor.

This is broader than FEHA’s anti-discrimination provisions, which apply only to employers with five or more employees. FEHA also requires employers to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent and correct harassment (Gov. Code § 12940(k)) — a proactive obligation that exists independent of whether harassment has actually occurred.

Mandatory Sexual Harassment Training — SB 1343

Under SB 1343 (codified at Gov. Code § 12950.1), California employers with five or more employees must provide sexual harassment prevention training to all employees. Supervisory employees must receive two hours of training; non-supervisory employees must receive one hour.

Training must be repeated every two years. The CRD accepts complaints from employees who believe their employer has not complied with these training requirements. Non-compliance is itself an actionable violation and evidence of an employer’s failure to take reasonable preventive steps.

Employer Liability Standards — Supervisor vs. Coworker

Employer liability for workplace harassment depends on whether the harasser held supervisory authority over the victim. The following table summarizes the applicable standards:

Find Vetted California Workplace Harassment Attorneys

1000Attorneys.com is a Lawyer Referral and Information Service certified by the California State Bar and accredited by the American Bar Association.

Workplace harassment cases in California often involve detailed factual analysis, including the nature of the conduct, whether it was severe or pervasive, the employer’s response, and whether the conduct was tied to a protected characteristic under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Not every unpleasant or unfair workplace interaction rises to the level of unlawful harassment, which makes proper evaluation critical.

Our role is to provide neutral, structured access to independently licensed attorneys who handle workplace harassment matters across California.

We do not rank attorneys based on advertising or paid placement. Referrals are made based on the nature of your issue, your location, and the attorney’s licensing status and experience.

Since 2005, we have helped individuals navigate complex employment law concerns by providing a reliable starting point to understand their options and connect with qualified legal professionals.

You may submit your inquiry online for review. Most requests are processed promptly.

Notable Harassment in The Workplace Settlements and Verdicts in California

California has witnessed several significant settlements and verdicts related to workplace harassment, underscoring the state’s commitment to maintaining safe and respectful work environments.

Notable cases include:

1. Microsoft Corp. Settlement (2024): Microsoft agreed to pay $14.4 million to settle allegations by the California Civil Rights Department that the company engaged in retaliation and discrimination against workers based on their use of protected leave, including parental, disability, pregnancy, and family caregiving leave. The settlement also includes commitments to revise company policies and provide training to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws.

2. Snap Inc. Settlement (2024): Snap Inc., the owner of Snapchat, agreed to pay $15 million to resolve claims by the California Civil Rights Department accusing the company of paying women less than men, subjecting female workers to sexual harassment, and retaliating against those who complained. The settlement includes provisions for the company to hire an independent consultant to review its compensation and promotion policies, ensure staffing agency contracts adhere to anti-discrimination laws, and conduct training on preventing discrimination, retaliation, and sexual harassment.

3. Alki David Verdict (2024): A jury recommended that billionaire Alki David pay $900 million in damages to a former employee who detailed ongoing workplace sexual assault and harassment, including allegations of a “rape room” and other inappropriate behavior. This verdict highlights the severe consequences of egregious workplace misconduct.

4. Tesla Settlement (2024): Tesla settled a lawsuit with a former factory employee who claimed she was fired after complaining about severe sexual harassment at the company’s Fremont, California, assembly plant. The settlement terms were not disclosed, but the case is part of a series of sexual harassment lawsuits against Tesla since 2021.

5. Riot Games Settlement (2021): Riot Games agreed to a $100 million settlement to resolve allegations of gender discrimination, including claims related to sexual harassment. The settlement aimed to compensate affected employees and implement workplace reforms to prevent future misconduct.

These cases underscore the importance of enforcing anti-harassment laws in California and the legal recourse available to employees facing such misconduct.

The distinction between supervisor and coworker liability was central to Bailey. The California Supreme Court confirmed that while the harasser’s supervisory status is a relevant factor in assessing severity and the totality of circumstances, it is not dispositive.

As the Court stated, “not all power appears on an organizational chart.” Where a coworker has an informal relationship with HR decision-makers that insulates the harasser and compromises the victim’s ability to report, that context is part of the totality of circumstances a jury considers.

Key Case Law

Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, 16 Cal.5th 611 (2024): A single coworker racial slur can constitute actionable harassment; employer must take immediate corrective action even after a single incident; HR obstruction of a harassment complaint can itself constitute an adverse employment action supporting a retaliation claim.

Roby v. McKesson Corp., 47 Cal.4th 686 (2009): Distinguished FEHA discrimination (official adverse actions by the employer) from harassment (bias communicated interpersonally in the workplace). Established that the two theories are complementary and can be pleaded together on the same facts.

Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035 (2009): Clarified that offensive conduct must be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable person belonging to the targeted group, not from a majority or generalized standpoint. Gave structure to the “reasonable victim” standard in California harassment cases.

Miller v. Department of Corrections, 36 Cal.4th 446 (2005): Pervasive sexual favoritism in the workplace — where a supervisor promoted employees with whom he was in sexual relationships — can create a hostile work environment for other female employees who observe the pattern, even those not directly subjected to advances.

Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions, 38 Cal.4th 264 (2006): Confirmed that the severe-or-pervasive standard requires the harassment to be directed at the plaintiff based on their protected characteristic — sexually explicit content used in a writers’ room setting did not constitute sexual harassment of a writer who was present, where the content was part of a creative process not directed at her specifically.

The Continuing Violation Doctrine

When harassment occurs over a period of time, the continuing violation doctrine allows a plaintiff to recover for acts that would otherwise fall outside the three-year filing window, provided at least one act occurred within the limitations period and the earlier acts were sufficiently related to constitute a single ongoing course of harassing conduct.

This doctrine is particularly significant in cases of pervasive harassment where the most severe incidents may have occurred earlier in the timeline.

Courts evaluate whether the acts are sufficiently linked in nature, severity, and purpose to qualify as a continuing violation rather than discrete, independent acts.

How to Prove a Workplace Harassment Claim in California

Under CACI No. 2521A, the elements a plaintiff must establish in a hostile work environment harassment case are:

The plaintiff was an employee of, or applied for a position with, the employer;
The plaintiff was subjected to unwanted harassing conduct because of a protected characteristic;
The conduct was severe or pervasive;
A reasonable person in the plaintiff’s circumstances would have considered the work environment hostile, intimidating, or offensive;
The plaintiff considered the work environment hostile, intimidating, or offensive; (
A supervisor engaged in the conduct, or the employer or its agents knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action; and
The plaintiff suffered harm, and the conduct was a substantial factor in causing it.

Evidence Categories That Matter Most

Written contemporaneous records: A dated journal or log kept at the time of the harassment — not reconstructed later — is among the most credible forms of evidence. Note the date, time, location, exact words used, who was present, and how the conduct affected your work and emotional state.

Internal HR complaints: Filing a formal written complaint with HR establishes the date of the employer’s notice. An employer cannot claim it was unaware of conduct you put in writing. If you reported verbally, follow up with an email confirming the substance of the conversation.

Emails, texts, and digital communications: Harassing messages sent through company systems or personal devices are often the most compelling evidence available. Preserve these immediately — electronic records can be deleted or overwritten, and litigation holds issued later may not capture everything.

Witness testimony: Coworkers who observed the harassing conduct, heard the comments, or noticed the change in the victim’s demeanor are critical. Identify potential witnesses before they leave the company.

Medical and psychiatric records: Documentation from a therapist, psychiatrist, or physician linking anxiety, depression, PTSD, or physical symptoms to the workplace environment strengthens emotional distress claims significantly. Begin treatment early and be specific with your provider about the workplace source of your distress.

Employer policy violations: An employer who failed to investigate, failed to impose any discipline, allowed the harasser to continue in the same role or proximity to the victim, or discouraged reporting has violated its own FEHA obligations. Document the employer’s response — or lack of one — as carefully as the harassment itself.

The Unwelcome Element

Harassment must be unwelcome to the recipient.

This does not require the victim to verbally object in every instance — California courts recognize that fear of retaliation, power dynamics, and the nature of supervisor-subordinate relationships may make explicit objection impractical or unsafe.

Conduct your response shows you did not invite, tolerate, or participate in — visible discomfort, withdrawal, avoidance, or any form of internal complaint — establishes the unwelcome character of the conduct.

The Objective and Subjective Standard

California applies a dual standard: the conduct must create an environment that both a reasonable person in the victim’s position would find hostile and that the victim actually found hostile.

The objective component is assessed from the perspective of a reasonable member of the targeted group — not from a generalized reasonable person standard that might minimize the impact of targeted bigotry.

The subjective component simply requires that the plaintiff herself experienced the environment as hostile, not that she suffered a psychological breakdown.

California courts are explicit that the law protects employees before the harassing environment seriously damages their well-being, not only after.

Filing a Harassment Claim: The CRD Process and Deadlines

Filing a harassment claim under FEHA requires exhausting administrative remedies with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) before a civil lawsuit can be filed.

The CRD process is mandatory for FEHA-based harassment claims and must be initiated within the applicable statute of limitations.

Step 1: File with the CRD

Complaints are submitted online through the California Civil Rights System (CCRS) portal at calcivilrights.ca.gov. The intake form asks you to identify the employer, the protected characteristic that was targeted, the specific conduct that constituted harassment, who committed it, and relevant dates.

The allegations in your CRD complaint set the scope of your potential civil lawsuit — claims not raised with the CRD cannot typically be added later in litigation.

CRD complaints that also allege facts covered by federal law are automatically cross-filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under the agencies’ worksharing agreement.

This dual-filing preserves both state and federal remedies without requiring a separate submission.

Step 2: Investigation and Right-to-Sue

After intake, the CRD notifies the employer and begins an investigation that typically takes 6 to 18 months. The agency may offer mediation, which can resolve the complaint without litigation.

If the investigation concludes with a finding of probable cause, the CRD may pursue enforcement or issue a right-to-sue notice enabling the employee to file in civil court.

Employees with strong evidence or strategic reasons to proceed quickly may request an immediate right-to-sue notice at the time of filing, bypassing the investigation entirely.

This option is available under Government Code § 12965(c)(3) and is commonly used by employees represented by counsel who are prepared to proceed to litigation directly.

Step 3: File the Civil Lawsuit

Once a right-to-sue notice is issued, you have one year from that date to file your harassment lawsuit in the California Superior Court. Missing this deadline extinguishes the civil claim regardless of its merits.

Your attorney will draft and file the complaint, serve the employer, and initiate the litigation process.

Deadlines: Do Not Miss These

FEHA harassment complaint (CRD): File within 3 years of the last act of harassment. (Gov. Code § 12960.) The continuing violation doctrine may extend this if a pattern of conduct is ongoing.

Civil lawsuit (post right-to-sue): File within 1 year of the right-to-sue notice date.

EEOC (federal claims, Title VII): File within 300 days of the last harassing act; CRD cross-filing satisfies this automatically.

Continuing violation: If the harassment was a course of ongoing conduct, the 3-year window runs from the date of the last act in that continuing pattern — not the first.

Damages Available in a California Workplace Harassment Case

California’s FEHA authorizes a full range of legal and equitable remedies for prevailing harassment plaintiffs, with no cap on compensatory or punitive damages — a critical advantage over federal Title VII, which limits combined compensatory and punitive damages to between $50,000 and $300,000 depending on employer size.

The following remedies apply in harassment cases, depending on the facts and legal theories pursued.

Emotional Distress Damages

In most workplace harassment cases, emotional distress damages represent the largest single component of recovery.

FEHA Government Code § 12965(b)(3)(A) expressly authorizes compensation for non-economic harm, including anxiety, depression, PTSD, humiliation, loss of self-esteem, insomnia, and physical manifestations of psychological injury such as headaches or gastrointestinal illness.

California imposes no cap on these awards. Awards range widely — from $15,000 to $20,000 in relatively contained cases, to well over $500,000 in cases involving prolonged harassment, clinical psychiatric injury, or deliberate cruelty.

Medical documentation and expert testimony from treating providers or forensic psychiatrists significantly strengthen these claims. For a deeper analysis, see our guide on suing for emotional distress in Los Angeles.

Lost Wages and Economic Damages

Where the harassment led to a constructive discharge, demotion, or denial of promotion, back pay covers the wages and benefits lost from that adverse action through the date of judgment or settlement. Front pay applies where reinstatement is not practicable.

California requires the employee to mitigate damages by making reasonable efforts to find comparable employment; post-termination earnings are offset against the back pay calculation.

Related to California wrongful termination, constructive discharge arising from a hostile work environment carries the same economic damage entitlements as a formal termination.

Punitive Damages

Punitive damages are available under FEHA Government Code § 12965(b)(3)(B) and California Civil Code § 3294 when the employer acted with malice, oppression, or fraud.

In the harassment context, this standard is met when management-level employees participated in or ratified the harassing conduct, when the employer actively concealed the harassment, or when an employer deliberately failed to investigate credible complaints to protect a high-value harasser.

Following Bailey, an HR manager’s systematic obstruction of a harassment complaint — combined with intimidating conduct toward the complainant — is precisely the kind of employer-level conduct that can support a punitive damage claim. California imposes no cap on FEHA punitive awards.

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

FEHA’s fee-shifting provision, Government Code § 12965(b), entitles a prevailing employee to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs from the employer.

Combined with contingency fee arrangements, this makes professional legal representation financially accessible to employees who could not otherwise afford to pursue a claim.

The fee-shifting provision also creates a strong deterrent against employers who might otherwise allow harassment to continue, knowing that the cost of defending a meritorious claim will fall entirely on them if they lose.

Injunctive Relief and Policy Changes

Courts may order employers to implement anti-harassment training, revise complaint procedures, remove the harasser from the workplace, or make other structural changes.

These remedies are particularly significant in cases involving systemic harassment or institutional failures — where the goal is not only to compensate the individual plaintiff but to prevent future harm to other employees.

Timeline of a California Workplace Harassment Case

The following timeline reflects the realistic progression of a FEHA harassment claim from the first incident through resolution.

The overwhelming majority of harassment cases with strong evidence resolve at the settlement stage, most commonly during or after discovery when both parties have full visibility into the documentary and witness record.

In Los Angeles and other major California jurisdictions, the period from CRD complaint filing to trial — in cases that proceed to trial — typically spans 18 months to three years.

Sexual harassment cases and racial harassment cases with documented medical impact and strong comparator evidence frequently settle in the $100,000–$500,000 range.

Cases involving punitive-damage exposure — particularly those where management or HR participated in or concealed the harassment — routinely settle or result in verdicts significantly above that range.

When to Hire a California Harassment Attorney

The right moment to consult a California employment attorney is the moment you believe you are being harassed, not after the situation has escalated to the point where you have already suffered serious harm.

Early legal involvement protects the evidence record, prevents procedural missteps in the CRD filing, and ensures that you understand your rights before signing anything your employer puts in front of you.

Consult an attorney immediately if any of the following apply:

You have been subjected to unwelcome conduct at work based on your race, sex, disability, religion, sexual orientation, or any other protected characteristic, and it has affected your ability to do your job.

A supervisor has conditioned any employment benefit — scheduling, promotion, favorable assignments, continued employment — on your response to a sexual or personal demand.

You reported harassment to HR and the employer has failed to investigate, has dismissed your complaint, or the harassing conduct has continued or worsened since your report.

You were terminated, demoted, or subjected to adverse changes in your employment after reporting harassment. See our guide on California workplace retaliation for a full analysis of that distinct but related claim.

You are considering resigning because the conditions have become intolerable. Before you do, speak with an attorney — a resignation under those circumstances may qualify as a constructive discharge, and how you document and time that departure matters significantly.

You have been asked to sign any agreement, release, or non-disclosure provision related to the harassment. California law has significantly restricted the use of NDAs in sexual harassment settlements — you should understand what you are being asked to waive before signing.

Most California employment attorneys handle harassment cases on a contingency fee basis: they are paid a percentage of the recovery, only if the case succeeds.

FEHA’s fee-shifting provision means the employer pays your attorney’s fees if you prevail, further reducing the financial risk of pursuing a valid claim.

The combination of contingency representation and statutory fee-shifting is designed precisely to ensure that employees without resources can hold well-funded employers accountable under California employment law.

Official Government Resources

The following government sources govern California workplace harassment law:

California Civil Rights Department (CRD) — calcivilrights.ca.gov — Enforces FEHA harassment prohibitions; receives and investigates harassment complaints; issues right-to-sue notices; accepts complaints regarding SB 1343 training violations.

California Department of Industrial Relations — dir.ca.gov — Oversees workplace safety and Labor Code protections, including retaliation claims arising from harassment complaints under Lab. Code § 1102.5 and related statutes.

California Legislative Information — leginfo.legislature.ca.gov — Full text of FEHA (Gov. Code §§ 12900–12996 including § 12940(j) harassment and § 12950.1 training requirements), SB 1343, and all current California employment law statutes.

Disclaimer

This page is published and maintained by 1000Attorneys.com, a California State Bar–Certified Lawyer Referral and Information Service. The information provided is for general educational purposes only and is not legal advice. 1000Attorneys.com is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. We operate in compliance with the California State Bar Lawyer Referral Service regulations and provide only public legal information and attorney referrals. No attorney-client relationship is created by using this website or requesting a referral. Legal advice may only be provided by a qualified attorney after direct consultation.